The RNC Primary Schedule Change and 2016

The RNC has voted to change its primary schedule and move the party’s convention to June:

The Republican National Committee on Friday voted to significantly compress its presidential nominating calendar and to move its nominating convention earlier in the summer of 2016.

The full committee voted at its annual winter meeting to approve a new rules package that would allow the four regular early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — to hold their nominating contests in February 2016 and penalize other states that might try to move their contests earlier than March 1.

One interesting question is whether compressing the calendar is actually a good idea. Indeed, some observers see this as a case of fighting the last war. The 2012 cycle, the theory goes, just went on too long, with eventual nominee Mitt Romney taking too many shots from other candidates.

My feeling, however, is that the hits Romney took almost certainly didn’t matter for the fall campaign. The real lesson of 2012 that Republicans should worry about is that virtually any crank, no matter how little qualified for president, can have a very good two weeks.

The party’s leaders can’t seem to make up their minds whether they want a short and quick nominating process (2008), or a drawn-out one that permits insurgent candidates more opportunities to compete and gives more states a chance to play a more important part in the process (2012). When McCain was able to wrap up the nomination by the first week of February, many conservatives were horrified because they didn’t want McCain, and so there was a great desire to find a way to keep that from happening again. The 2012 schedule was designed in part to do just that, but that process was just a longer version with the same result: the original front-runner won anyway. Now that they are going back to a more compressed schedule, that greatly improves the chances of whoever fills that front-runner role ahead of the voting. This makes it much more likely that what could potentially be the most wide-open, competitive Republican nomination contest on record will be turned into a rapid coronation of whoever happens to be in the lead at the start. That will probably mean that the party will once again choose another relative moderate distrusted by large numbers of conservatives, and who will suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm that afflicted McCain and Romney.

Hide 21 comments

21 Responses to The RNC Primary Schedule Change and 2016

I don’t know, this may be a savvy move for the RNC. There’s a significant ceiling to how helpful enthusiasm is (you still only get one vote), and just the idea of running against Hillary Clinton ought to be enough to hit that ceiling.

“another relative moderate distrusted by large numbers of conservatives”

The only quibble I have is with describing Romney as a “relative moderate.” His position in 2008 and 2012 was very much that of the unhinged Right – and you chronicled his moronic attacks on Obama’s FP rather well. That he was, at some point in his past, sane, or that the other cranks running in 2012 were more unhinged than he does not make Romney 2012 a “relative moderate”. Huntsman was, possibly, a “relative” moderate; not Mitt “47%”"apology tour”"corporations are people my friend” Romeny.

The thing that I find really interesting here is moving the convention so much earlier in the year. A party convention typically gives the nominee a bounce in the polls based on the combination of free media coverage and rally-round-the-candidate effect. Has the RNC decided that the problem in 2012 was that Obama “won the summer” and they want to avoid that problem by picking the nominee early? While that might work, it seems like a risky trade-off if the Democrats keep a late summer convention — that means the Democrats get the “last word” in terms of major media coverage heading into the home stretch of campaign season.

The party’s leaders can’t seem to make up their minds whether they want a short and quick nominating process (2008), or a drawn-out one that permits insurgent candidates more opportunities to compete and gives more states a chance to play a more important part in the process (2012).

This is a consequence of movement Republican thought on elections in general. There position since 2008 has been that Democrats win general elections because the wrong people are allowed to vote. When confronted with the fact the Republican primaries are producing bad results, they’re attitude is unstable and unmoored.

They should just stick with a simple schedule and let the candidates themselves discover the best way to contest the primaries. Instead, the leadership is completely enamored of procedural game playing and legal infighting in rules committees. This is what happens when all that #DEFUND energy gets turned inward.

That will probably mean that the party will once again choose another relative moderate distrusted by large numbers of conservatives, and who will suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm that afflicted McCain and Romney.

This is the bit that fails to persuade me. In spring of 1998, we knew that George W. Bush was preparing to run, and that he was already becoming an establishment favorite. In 2006, we knew the same of McCain (though he was further than Bush at the same point from establishment preference). In 2010, Romney was clearly also in that position.

So if it’s true that GOP voters will once again roll over and endorse the clear establishment preference, we should already have a pretty fair idea who that person is. Well, who is it?

Seems to me to be at least as likely that 2016 will be characterized by an absence of establishment consensus. Suppose the GOP runs a compressed national primary schedule, but at the start of the race, there is no Dubya, McCain, or Mitt. Then what?

Not really. It was pretty clear that the establishment was split and somewhat more inclined to Mitt Romney. McCain had to thread a needle to beat Mitt in the actual contest. It was only because Mitt was brought down in Iowa by the evangelical surge behind Huckabee that McCain had a chance in NH and then it was still close for a couple weeks.

Today the establishment is more and more behind Governor Christie, but there’s still time for Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio to emerge. There’s very little chance anyone but those three will manage to make any kind of serious run.

Still, three possible candidates is more than the usual at this stage. In 2012 and 1996 we knew the nominee by now. In 2008, 2000, and 1988 we were down to only two realistic candidates by now. As you observe, the nominee is usually decided before the previous midterm election and the base always follows the establishment.

I find Jonathan Bernstein’s analysis well worth reading (though now that he’s at Bloomberg I no longer bother reading the comments – a pity that: some of the Plain Blog commentariat were well worth reading too), but I take strong exception to this:

Actually, that’s not really a new lesson; the idea that almost any candidate can surge temporarily goes way back, maybe even to George Wallace in the Democratic primaries in 1972. It’s essentially the story of Gary Hart in 1984; Hart wasn’t an unqualified crank, but he might as well have been, given the content-free hype he received for a short while. And it’s essentially the stories of Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum in 2012.

I strongly disagree with Santorum on most contested issues, but I don’t consider his 2012 campaign to have received “content-free hype” any more than the minimum implied by the media incentives to play up the competitiveness of a contest. He seemed to me to be running on substantive positions (insane ones in some cases, such as the threat of the Greater Venezuelan Reich, but substantive insanity).

In the case of Bachman and Gingrich, I got the impression that the primary content they provided to the primary and sometimes caucus voters was precisely that they were perceived to drive the Eeevul Libruls nuts.

Has there been a Democratic candidate who drew significant strength in intraparty contests from the fact that s/he drove Republicans more crazy than the Democrats s/he was competing against? Maybe Clinton in 2008? Any state level contests? I know people like Alan Grayson like to play bomb-thrower, but do they use a claim that they inuriate the opposition against intraparty opponents? Not that I know of.

“There’s very little chance anyone but those three will manage to make any kind of serious run.” I might add Santorum to that list. He’s definitely got a fringe element to him, but he’s also someone that the establishment could suck it up and support if they felt the need.

The real lesson of 2012 that Republicans should worry about is that virtually any crank, no matter how little qualified for president, can have a very good two weeks

Compared to what? It’s a free country. Anybody who can follow the rules can submit himself for public consideration. Any system is going to attract outlandish characters. Who does this writer think should filter out the “cranks,” if not the voters? And who are the “cranks” anyway? People who oppose endless war, or endless immigration, or endless free trade?

I like a shorter primary season, but among one of my many futile longings is that the primary would season would be shorter because it starts later, not ends later. Otherwise the whole campaign season remains just as long, but it now has a strange suspended animation summer stuck in it. It would be great if somehow a law could be passed forcing both parties to begin campaigning only after March 1. And I’d really like a pony.

Commenter Chris Atwood says that his idea that both parties should be forced to begin campaigning after March 1 is like wishing for a pony. Well, I have a pony of my own to wish for. Frankly, I could care less which bloated prostitute from either of the two major whore beauty contests wins the nomination of their respective stables for Hooker-In-Chief, but I do care about basic democracy. After all, if we are going to pretend to be a democracy, shouldn’t we at least make it look real? Has it occurred to anyone that the primary horse race process is anti-democratic? Specifically, the states that vote latest are partially, and sometimes completely, disenfranchised? For example, once McCain or Romney achieved a majority of delegates, any states that voted after that point effectively didn’t count? Personally, I don’t care how long these characters campaign, but the long, drawn out primary voting process is absurd. My pony would be that a law be passed setting all presidential primaries to be held on, for example, the second Tuesday in June, and that they be done by ranked choice, instant runoff voting. This would allow an equal franchise for all primary voters, and always produce one winning candidate.

The republican debates last time out looked like a line up. Over and over and over. It may have been intensely interesting to true believers but I would characterize it as a ridiculous spectacle. Those debates had to hurt the Nominee. I think they hurt the whole Party. The committee is wise to avoid a repeat.

Hillary will probably be unopposed for the Democratic nomination. For the Republicans it will be like running against an incumbent. I am not a Republican but here is my advise anyway. Nominate Jeb Bush early and get it over with.

I won’t have a favorite in the Jeb vs Hillary show. The people can’t win and the Oligarchy can’t lose. But if I were a Republican I would choose a blue blood for the epic battle ahead.

A strong candidate can survive regardless of the length of the primary season. A weak candidate will remain weak as well. The need for better candidates is obvious, but the availability of such candidates is not.

As usual, the Republicans got it wrong. The Republicans should have tried something novel: wait until mid-May to begin their primaries. Start things off around May 20th with a round of caucuses. Have two weeks of primaries beginning June 1. Have one more round of caucuses. Have two final weeks of primaries running to around July 10. Have the convention immediately following the last set of primaries. Also make the rule that unless a candidate has 3/4 of the delegates heading into the convention, no delegate is bound to vote for anyone even on the first ballot. Start full scale campaigning in August.

If Rand Paul is not the nominee he will at least have his day in the sun at the Convention that his father was denied. The abbreviated primary schedule may keep any candidate from accruing the majority of delegate votes prior to the Convention and we will have what the country has long waited for – a nomination determined by the actual delegates instead of a primary process bought and paid for by PAC’s and lobbyists.